Smear job by “The Carbon Brief”

The website “populartechnology.net” decided to ask the questions the smear publishers didn’t. I’ve been authorized to reproduce this in full here, and reposting at other blogs is encouraged. AGW proponents seem hell bent on trying to repeat this “linked to” nonsense at any cost, why just the other day I found out I was apparently funded by a “Pacific Island Development Company” (according to comments on another website). Heh, I’ve yet to see that check or any from Exxon-Mobil or any other energy or development company. Somebody must be stealing checks out of my mailbox. /sarc – Anthony

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Christy: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Christy: “The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a “Marshall Institute expert”. I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection – hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman.”

David H. Douglass, B.S. Physics, University of Maine; Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1959); Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1959-1961); Member, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1961); Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Associate Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Fellow, American Physical Society; Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1968-Present)

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

Douglass: “No funds from Exxon Mobil or any other fossil fuel industry.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

Douglass: “No.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Douglass: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Douglass: “I have no research funds from the fossil fuel industry or any governmental body.”

Kimball: “Of course. There are a number of experiments I would like to do that I have not been able to get funded.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Kimball: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Kimball: “Almost all of my work co-authored with Sherwood Idso has been about the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations on the growth of plants, and I have never published on whether elevated CO2 affects climate. Further, all of the CO2 work was funded by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy.”

McKitrick: “No, I have never sought or received funding from Exxon or any other oil company. My research funding comes from SSHRCC, a peer-reviewed federal granting agency, and from internal university funds. In many case I don’t have any external funding for research projects since I don’t incur any costs. The theory that Exxon generates the academic research that contests climate alarmism is one of those tired cliches that appeals to stupid, lazy people who can’t be bothered reading the papers and understanding the arguments.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

McKitrick: “No of course not. If I was willing to change my views to ingratiate myself with a funding source I would by now be on the global warming alarmist bandwagon.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

McKitrick: “No, to the extent my scientific position on climate change has developed and changed over the years it has been due to the research I have seen and done, and the data that has been published. My views, and the arguments that support them, are copiously documented in my writings.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

McKitrick: “It is noteworthy that the article omits the fact that I am a tenured full professor at the University of Guelph, and only describes me as a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute. For an article obsessed with funding sources, they neglect to point out that my salary comes from the University, not the Institute, and my external research funding comes from SSHRCC. With regard to the Fraser Institute, to say it is “Exxon Funded” betrays the ignorance of the article authors. The Fraser Institute is the largest and most influential economic policy think tank in Canada and one of the most influential think tanks in the world. It is supported by annual donations from over 6,000 individuals, foundations and organizations, none of whom have any editorial control over research. I do not know which corporations donate in any given year, since I am not involved in fundraising and it does not affect me, since the Institute does not do any contract research, either for industry or government or anyone else, in order to maintain its editorial autonomy. The Institute has never had any involvement with my academic journal articles, either in the form of funding or collaboration.

The article’s dishonesty is also revealed by their comment about the Global Warming Policy Foundation — “funders unknown”. Had they checked http://thegwpf.org/who-we-are/history-and-mission.html they would see that it is funded by individuals and charitable trusts, and does not accept donations from energy firms or from any individual with a significant interest in an energy company.”

Singer: “Yes. An unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

Singer: “None Whatsoever.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Singer: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Singer: “1. We are funded almost 100% by private donations from individuals.

2. I note that Exxon and other companies are funding supporters of AGW with direct grants to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

3. I note the common smear tactic of such terms as ‘linked to’ in the final analysis, since Exxon pays taxes to government, the multi-billions of tax money supporting AGW science are ‘linked to’ Exxon etc.”

Goklany: “As its name reveals, Carbon Brief’s entire raison d’etre hinges on the notion that carbon dioxide is a harmful substance. Therefore it is hardly surprising that it would attack any individual or organization that would dare suggest that CO2 is not as harmful as it would have us believe.

Readers can judge for themselves who has a greater financial stake in the man-made global warming issue: I, who has never taken a sous from Exxon-Mobil, or Carbon Brief whose very existence depends on perpetuating the notion CO2 is a harmful, if not downright dangerous, gas.

What’s interesting about Carbon Brief’s “analysis” is that it is devoid of intellectual content. It doesn’t present any science, data or reasoned argument refuting – or even questioning — the contents of the papers cited in Popular Technology. Instead it uses that time-honored technique used by those who have no arguments: guilt by association. This is first cousin to an ad hominem attack. The irony is that on its web page, ABOUT US, it has a Comments policy which states:

– Stay on-topic: stick to the subject of the blog you are commenting on. Off-topic comments (even if reasonable, polite and interesting) may be deleted. Comments which contain links to inappropriate, irrelevant or commercial sites may also be deleted.

– Advance the discussion: we welcome evidence-based comments and links to useful resources. Persistent comments along the lines of “this is just alarmist/denier nonsense” with no supporting evidence may be deleted.

– Be polite: comments which contain swearing or which abuse other participants in the debate may be deleted. No ALL CAPS shouting please. Particularly:

– No ad hominem attacks: vigorous debate is fine, but not personal attacks or accusations (Underlining is added).

So will Carbon Brief follow through on its policy and delete its blogs that refer to its so-called “analysis”?

Normally when I have the time, I am happy to discuss and debate my views, science, reasoning, etc. But in the case of Carbon Brief, I’ll make an exception and refuse to engage, since its “analysis” reveals its lack of intellectual content.

Although I cannot, and have not avail myself of Exxon-Mobil’s munificence, since the vast majority of my career has been in government, I have no doubt that some of its dollars have found their way into my pocket, via the moneys Exxon-Mobil pays in taxes. I have no idea who or what funds Carbon Brief, but I hope it keeps away from any government largesse: that’s contaminated with tax payments from all kinds of companies that produce and use fossil fuels.”

Idso: “I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented — and continue to present — what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write.”

Conclusion:

The scientists unjustly attacked in the Carbon Brief article are not “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil. The Carbon Brief and any other website perpetuating this smear should issue a retraction.

The editor of Energy and Environement was ALSO NOT contacted by the Crabon Brief before they wrote the article criticising it. I contacted Sonja, and she put the comment into the blog, but of course the artcile will have been read as soon as it was twittered to the media and her comment will never be seen by the twitter followers of the Carbon Brief.. (this is verified as being Sonja)

Sonja Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen:

“Lot of badly informed and misleading material about E&E and me.

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of E&E since 1994; contributor since 1991. Senior Research Fellow SPRU, University of Sussex; Reader Emeritus, Hull University

All papers that are published In E&E as research papers are peer reviewed, many heavily so; only Viewpoints are not. The journal is not a science buy an interdisciplinary journal. Its editorial policy has not changed since the early 1990s, long before GWPF was set up. Benny Peiser became co-editor before GWPF was even conceived of because we shared a philosophy about environmentalism and its impacts on energy policy. He is unlikely to remain my co-editor for much longer because of his new work load, and because his dual role may be used to disparage the journal, as your attack suggests. E&E has been dedicated to critically examine the environmental regulatory pressures exerted on energy policy since 1990, long before GWPI was set up.

E&E is an interdisciplinary academic journal publishing on relevant economic, social and technological subjects. Climate science is only of importance because of the growing role this alleged threat has played in policy justification and regulatory efforts. The demonisation of greenhouse gas emissions has encouraged me to publish so-called climate sceptics, with the helpful support of my publisher, since the early 1990s. E&E encourages a less ideological (less ‘green’) analysis to energy policy that environmental pressure groups would like. Climate science debates deserve serious attention rather then the kind of approach reminiscent of McCarthyism practised here.

My political agenda for E&E is not party political but relates to academic and intellectual freedom. I am an geographer turned international relations specialist (environment as special field) and as such have long been critical of environmentalist exaggerations. I have observed and recorded ‘scare mongering’ effects utilised by politics on policy and economic competition since the early 1980s. I now believe that in a subject as new, complex and poorly understood as climate science and climate history over geologic time – which I studied as a physical geographer and geomorphologist in Australia – all voices should be published and debated. However, the opposite happened once the climate research, with help of the IPCC and the WMO became de facto servants of global and EU energy ambitions. Only environmentalists and some vested interests (political, economic and financial) are very sure that the observed warming is indeed primarily anthropogenic, dangerous and subject to mitigated by subsidisation and regulation. ‘Renewables’, nuclear power and an assortment of promising technologies are to liberate us from cheap and readily available ‘fossil’ , i.e. carbon fuels. Why? Not all of these efforts to decarbonise energy supply are ‘bad’, but they should not be justified with scare stories, imposed on others as part of a global economic agenda.

I have done a environmental and energy policy research myself , including of the role of science in policy-making when a Senior Research Fellow at Sussex Science Policy Unit (SPRU) in the 1990s. I have published a lot on why climate scepticisms remains an intellectually justified position.

While I may personally regret energy policy agendas based on the climate threat, this does not stop E&E from publishing many papers that do not agree with this position. I regret, however, that very little else but ‘decarbonisation’ research is funded at the moment. Decarbonisation dominates research papers, even those from emerging economies. Other environmental issues (and there are many) are largely ignored. Energy poverty is but little researched, as is the geo-politics of energy, both of more immediate concern.”

I had a good news email from Sonja (I have checked with her whether it was OK to reproduce part of it, I have left out the email to Realclimate for the moment)

27 April 2011 12:57
Dear Barry and Gavin, dear All

Below is News: “We are now in the ISI.”

It has been a long struggle and I would like to thank Bill Hughes of Multi-science for his ‘sustained’ efforts, as well a Linda Love and Louise Purcell who have been such loyal ‘assistants’ to Energy&Environment. For so many years. They had to cope – one after the other – with many of the difficulties associated with peer review. Eight issues a years is not an easy task for two women working part-time.

It is unclear whether E&E is peer-reviewed. The journal is not listed by the ISI Web of Knowledge, which provides “comprehensive coverage of the world’s most important and influential journals”. E&E has been described by Gavin Schmidt of the science blog RealClimate as having “effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line”. – Carbon Brief

Thanks

Sonja

To: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen
Subject: We’re in ISI

Good News!

Energy & Environment has just been accepted for indexing in the Social Sciences Citation Index, a database in the Web of Science, as well as Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences. Indexing will begin with Vol. 20, 2009 and forward. The journal will be listed with an Impact Factor in the 2011 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) when it is published in June 2012.

We are using the electronic version of the journal for indexing. Issues will begin to appear in products in about 3 weeks or so.

Our editors consider many factors when evaluating journals in addition to citation counts, such as scope, authors, etc….”

I think the wrong question is being asked. You’re attempting to respond the accusations of “linked to” by asking the question “Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”

These are not the same; it is very easy to say no to your “direct” question and still receive funding from any number of intermediary agencies that are directly supported by fossil fuel industries. If your questions are intended to disclose the lack of any money trail, I’m afraid this does not achieve it. I’m not trying to say there is a money trail, just that this question easily allows one to avoid disclosing if there is one.

Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry.

or…

Once you crunch the numbers you find a good proportion of climate change science comes down to a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry.

IMO Borg Lomborg’s lasting achievement was to cause environmentalists like myself to become aware of some totally inexcusable biases in the reporting of the environmental damage caused by civilisation, and so he caused many of us for the first time to turn a steady critical eye on the possibility that this bias might be motivated (consciously or unconsciously) by the vested interests of those enviromental scientists who have chosen to embrace the moral high ground.

Until you make the Lomborg leap, one simply cannot see how, say, a director of a Centre for Climate Change Research might have a greater vested interest in saying that climate change exists than someone who once received Big Oil funding in expressing scepticism of this claim. It is so rediculiously obvious to me now that I am embarrassed and amazed that I was blind to this possibility before.

The Carbon Brief – MONEY TRAIL
Well funded with political influence
(from the Watts Up – Carbon Brief article)https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/

“The Carbon Brief is backed by the European Climate Foundation and it appears to me to be a PR machine specifically designed to counter any scepticism and it has the funding, resources, political backing and contacts to do just that.

“European Climate Foundation aims to promote climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions and help Europe play an even stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change.” –

“…. To meet that challenge, six funding partners joined forces in 2007 to create a new multi-million euro philanthropic entity called the European Climate Foundation.” – About Us – ECF

The activities of the Carbon Brief seems to me to be at odds with the other stated commitment of the European Climate Foundation, which made me laugh in disbelief at their apparent ‘doublethink’.

“We seek to maintain a reputation for objective, high-quality work that is neither ideological nor politically biased.” – About Us ECF

The European Climate Foundation (ECF) is well funded by its partners and even more importantly is very well connected politically in Europe for the clear aim of 80-95 % reduction in CHG’s by 2050. The Energy Strategy Centre is the European Climate Centre’s communications and media arm, which would indicate that The Carbon Brief far from being non-ideological and not politically biased, has as its sole purpose the promotion of the ECF’s agenda, which is to lobby hard for European Union climate and economic policy change.

“The majority of the European Climate Foundation’s fund is re-granted to NGOs engaged in trying to bring about meaningful policy change. When we see an unfulfilled need we also engage in direct initiatives, such as commission papers, convene meetings or launch a new organisation. We seek no public attention for our efforts and instead prefer to highlight the success of those who are actually doing the work.

We have identified four major areas for immediate intervention within Europe:

• Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry

• Low-Carbon Power Generation

• Transportation

• EU Climate Policies and Diplomacy

—————————

so evidence of well funded AGW PR campaign

.. and I still haven’t recieved a cheque from Exxon (or anybody else) ;)

fredb says:
May 14, 2011 at 3:14 am
I think the wrong question is being asked. You’re attempting to respond the accusations of “linked to” by asking the question “Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”

These are not the same; it is very easy to say no to your “direct” question and still receive funding from any number of intermediary agencies that are directly supported by fossil fuel industries. If your questions are intended to disclose the lack of any money trail, I’m afraid this does not achieve it. I’m not trying to say there is a money trail, just that this question easily allows one to avoid disclosing if there is one.

@fredb: The question of funding is in direct response to the accusation made in the article. If you believe it falls short and that these authors are answering truthfully to the question yet still hiding funding from ‘big oil’ sources ( despite most of them explaining exactly where their funding does come from in their response ) then I suggest that you create a survey with questions that will give the answers that satisfy you and put your mind at ease.

It’s very easy to sit and point fingers from your armchair. If its not acceptable to you ( the response ) then do something about it and tell us of your findings rather then tell us of what you think might hypothetically happen in any given scenario. That kind of guesswork belongs in climate models.

And before you say “I’m not pointing fingers” Unfortunately when one makes an implication followed by “but I’m not making any implication” then the implication has already been seeded in the reader’s mind.

fredb,
But as several responders point out, to an extent anyone who does research paid for by government, not only in the US but also in the UK and elsewhere, could be said to be “linked to” any company who pays taxes in that jurisdiction.
On that basis, virtually all climate scientists are “linked to” Exxon Mobil or Shell or BP or any of the power generators. In fact BP has in the past given direct support to the CRU at East Anglia, so where does that put them?
And how is a researcher supposed to know where all the money is coming from? As McKittrick pointed out, that’s not his department. Is he supposed to demand a list of the previous 10 years of donations to see if there’s one that might upset Greenpeace or any other of the anti-science organisations that infest the planet?
It has evidently escaped the notice of the enviro-mentalists at Carbon Brief (and in the rest of that sad community of losers) that oil and gas companies and power generators are comfortably ensconced on the climate gravy train because they know a good thing when they see it.
I was in discussion some years ago with a development guy from E:ON who wanted my support for a planned wind farm locally. He admitted when challenged that if it weren’t for the subsidy they were getting from the UK government there would be no question of even thinking about wind power but as long as the cash came rolling in they would go on building the things!
The idea that there is a hard core of sceptics paid by Big Oil or Big Coal or Big Elec (or Big Brother, for all I know) to oppose AGW is so ludicrous is to be unbelievable in any other sphere of activity.
What there is is a fairly large number of scientists a damn sight more experienced and a damn sight better-qualified than the second-raters who have managed to find a niche to keep their bank balances warm who, sooner or later, are going to win this argument unless the public can be made to believe that they are all tainted by association with the enviro-mentalists’ Big Bogeyman.
Never mind Big Oil; what we need to worry about is the Big Lie.

IMO Borg Lomborg’s lasting achievement was to cause environmentalists like myself to become aware of some totally inexcusable biases in the reporting of the environmental damage caused by civilisation, and so he caused many of us for the first time to turn a steady critical eye on the possibility that this bias might be motivated (consciously or unconsciously) by the vested interests of those enviromental scientists who have chosen to embrace the moral high ground.

Well put. Lomborg had a big impact on my thinking. Obviously his work has done the same for many others.

This explains the vicious attacks on the man, particularly by Scientific American. Some just can’t take criticism, particularly where their own dishonest twisting of the facts is brought to light.

There is an upshot to all this. I now have more time for the reading of honest commentators now that I’ve excluded publications such as Scientific American, Time, large chunks of NYT, etc.

I used to work just down the hall from Dr. Christy at UAH. He told me one time that a major donor to the University of Alabama system (but not UAH), who owned Drummond Coal in Alabama and who was on the system board of trustees had discussed donating money to the research institute. He would not do so because even to donate something to the overall organization (a $40 million per year organization) might provide fodder to the alarmists. This was before Christy had built the center for global hydrology at UAH.

I personally watched Dr. Christy get raked over the coals by the then senator Al Gore for simply publishing a paper that refuted the climate science findings of the early 1990’s. One of the nicest guys around as well.

fredb, “I think the wrong question is being asked. You’re attempting to respond the accusations of “linked to” by asking the question “Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”

These are not the same; it is very easy to say no to your “direct” question and still receive funding from any number of intermediary agencies that are directly supported by fossil fuel industries. If your questions are intended to disclose the lack of any money trail, I’m afraid this does not achieve it. I’m not trying to say there is a money trail, just that this question easily allows one to avoid disclosing if there is one.”

That is the direct insinuation, that they receive their funding from ExxonMobil. Please shows us this imaginary “money trail” that those who keep accusing skeptics of believing in “conspiracy theories” believes exists via conspiracy theories. In the world of conspiracy theories nothing can satisfy those who demand proof of something they fail to provide to justify their own beliefs.

Knowing that question #1 would not satisfy the conspiracy theorists I included questions #2 and #3 which makes the overriding insinuation of corruption irrelevant.

Why is it so hard to just address their scientific arguments? Why is it so hard to believe there are credentialed scientists who honestly do not support an alarmist position on climate change? Seriously.

These accusations stick and they don’t go away. I recently wrote a paper (for a class) and was told after my rough draft to avoid certain sources because they were tainted (this by an instructor who knows a lot less than I do about this topic). Who were those sources? Roy Spencer and Ross McKitrick. I found other articles by acceptable authors that said the exact same thing. But I was offended by the suggestion as well.

Here are relevant comments I’ve posted here on this topic in the past:

This mountain-from-molehill tactic is Standard Operating Procedure there [sourcewatch] and is a mantra of many alarmists: Anyone who has spoken at the conference or dinner of a free-market think tank is “linked to” or “associated with” it, in their weasel words, which they know will be misinterpreted by their credulous readers as meaning “supported by.” Receiving a tiny speaker’s fee and travel expenses hardly counts as support. It’s not like the enormous fees that Gore et al. (including some supposedly neutral environmental journalists) get.

However, our side should bear in mind when replying that in some cases Heartland publishes books by various scorcher-scoffers like Anthony, which makes the association a bit closer–though not by much.
———————–

“Those who doubted global warming and opposed the protocol began to receive funding from utility companies and particularly the oil industry. A 2010 Greenpeace report found that Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates pipelines, donated nearly $48 million to climate change opposition groups from 1997 to 2008.”

Keep your eye on the thimble. “Those who doubted global warming” are not identical with “climate change opposition groups.” The latter are single-focus groups, the former are libertarian think tanks that have a multitude of pro-business focuses, which Koch probably supports as well.

What’s tricky here are the insinuations that ALL of the $48 million went to opposing climate change, and that single-focus climate cynic groups received it. In fact, the all-purpose pro-business think tanks probably earmarked only 10% of it to global warming research, and it’s unlikely that single-focus climate cynic groups received any of it.

But of course only critical thinkers detect this subterfuge, which is commonly employed by Our Betters to smear their most effective opponents.
——————–

Geoff Sherrington says:
May 27, 2010 at 5:52 pm

I do not see any significant organisations of “skeptics” (nor funding) beyong the holding of an occasional meeting and the provision, gratis, of a half dozen websites that have become significant through their excellence.

The claim that the “skeptic” group is well organisised is simply not true. It is a fragmentation of concerned individuals. Fortunately, some of them are better at times with math and science and concepts than some IPCC contributors.

There are no public service ads promoting the skeptic position, no PR agencies working for us forwarding packaged stories to the press (the other side is doing a superb job of that), no handy umbrella site for bloggers, etc., etc. (For more, see my “Notes from Skull Island” on this site last month somewhere.)
——————-

frflyer says:
May 19, 2010 at 7:56 pm

And these 32 organizations who have helped deny the science of tobacco dangers, …

“Tobacco dangers” come in three flavors: smoking, chronic 2nd-hand smoke, and intermittent 2nd-hand smoke (in restaurants, etc.). Denial of the first was outrageous, of the second was non-outrageous (the initial science was spotty), and of the third is well-justified. The use of the “tobacco card” is unjustified in cases where the institutes cited were engaged only in quibbling about the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke. I suspect that the card players know that what they’re doing creates the false impression about what these institutes have done (i.e., suggesting that they denied the link to smoking), but they do so anyway, because it’s so rhetorically effective.

The “card players” like the UCS report engage in a similar smear when they list the names of skeptical scientists who have “affiliations” with these institutes without spelling out what they are. The unwary reader thereby gets the impression that affiliation means employment or funding, rather than merely (as I suspect) getting a speaker’s fee for giving a talk at a dinner or for reprint rights to an article, etc.
—————

Alarmism brings in donations to environmental organizations. A catastrophic and unstoppable (once triggered) global threat alarms potential donors as nothing else can, and opens their checkbooks. So the gang-greens are strongly incentivized to exaggerate and play dirty.
—————-

I printed out and skimmed the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) PDF on big oil influence, which many alarmists rely on to make this smear. I also visited the Heartland Institute’s website a few months ago. It appears to me that the links between big oil and skeptical scientists are pretty tenuous. The UCS reports claims that many big-name skeptical scientists are “affiliated” with free-market think tanks, which in turn get some funding from Exxon, etc.

But the affiliations don’t seem to me to amount to much. It’s not that these guys are “Fellows” at the think tanks. Rather, it’s more likely (I guess) that they have received payment for giving a speech to donors to the Institutes, or for having their papers reprinted in an anthology published by the Institutes.

And these institutes are hardly “front groups,” which the UCS report claims. They were mostly formed (I’m sure) without any big donations from Exxon et allies, and don’t receive more than a small portion of their donations from similar sources.

There ought to be a thread on this topic. Or at least, if someone’s already debunked this claim online, someone should post a link to it.
————————-
The Independent’s reporter wrote:

“A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change. …”

“the Heartland Institute … is another right-wing think-tank …”

When writing for a European audience, the term “right-wing” should be avoided when referring to organizations that would be more accurately described as “libertarian,” “free-market,” “Classical-Liberal,” etc. Such organizations typically oppose “right-wing” policies like tariffs, immigration restrictions, censorship, creationism, militarism, etc., etc.

“see above, in 2008 Environmental Defense Fund said over $450 million was spent to attack climate science and climate action”

Actually, it did not make that claim but rather something tantalizingly close to it, no doubt hoping readers would get the same mistaken impression that Olson did. See if you can spot the difference:

“$450 million: amount spent on lobbying and political contributions by opponents of global warming action in 2008.”

The difference is that this statement says only that the opponents spent it on SOME form of lobbying and political contributions. It doesn’t say that they spent this money on opposition to global warming action. It subtly inveigles the reader into jumping to that inflated conclusion. (My guess is that the amount spent on opposition to global warming action is a single-digit percentage of the total political spending.) There’s no doubt a technical term for this propaganda technique. (Equivocation?)

For the record, the letter, reproduced in full as a screen shot, is titled “Operation Climate Vote” (no date), and was written by Sam Parry, Director of Online Membership and Activism.
—————-
the EDF probably (?) or possibly counts all the money given by Exxon to any free-market institute as going 100% to fighting CO2 legislation, even though Exxon probably supports the dozen or so other projects the institute is working on. (For instance, it’s likely (?) that Exxon also gives money to institutes that don’t have initiatives devoted to CO2, just like many other large businesses.)

Further, it’s likely that many firms that would not be directly impacted by CO2 legislation donate to institutes that have CO2 initiatives, and do so in proportion to their donations to institutes that don’t have such initiatives. Teasing these strands apart undermines the EDF’s implication that these institutes are just fronts for anti-climate legislation.

More importantly, I wonder if the EDF counts ALL money donated to any institute that opposes global warming among it’s $450 million “spent by opponents of global warming action.” I suspect it does.
—————
===========

Sure. First, it starts out with the Wikipedia template, attempting to obtain authority through a false front.

Next, it conflates travel expenses with “funding,” which has a specific meaning. They are not the same. Funding is provided in the form of of grants, which pay salaries. Grants are normally given to study a specific question. Had Prof Lindzen received grants from oil companies, it would certainly have been reported.

But they only report – with no verifiable documentation provided, but only uncorroborated second hand comments – that some twenty years ago Lindzen had received consulting and expert witness fees. Expert witness fees are normally paid during a legal action, which energy companies are always embroiled in, and Lindzen certainly qualifies as an expert witness.

It is also not mentioned in the article that paying academics to be expert witnesses is a a very common practice. Likewise with consulting services. And the only specific date mentioned is 1991; the article admits that since Dr Lindzen was paid to be an expert witness, he “has taken none of their money since.”

Nothing in the article mentions the fact that Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Caspar Amman and numerous other climate alarmist scientists are receiving ongoing funding from outside entities such as the Joyce Foundation, several Soros foundations, the Heinz Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, the WWF, etc.

These outside entities all have one thing in common: they are pushing a CAGW agenda. But as the writer admits, Dr Lindzen does not take outside funding. He has received expert witness and consulting fees. Would anyone refuse compensation if they were subpoenaed to testify? The article further acknowledges, as reported by Newsweek, that Prof Lindzen “receives no funding from any energy companies.”

The tables have turned and we now have Greenpeace fanatics sitting on the board of directors for oil companies like Shell, BP, Chevron/Texaco, Conoco Phillips and guess who? Exxon Mobil. Many more “activists” act as paid consultant in various capacities to corporations like SC Johnson, Proctor and Gamble (now hipply referred to as P&G), Dow Chemical, DuPont etc etc. Most of these Eco-Mentalist fronts derive the lions share of their funding through shake downs and extortion from the largest corporations and governments in the world.

So basically if your college roommate’s brother-in-law’s ex-girlfriend’s cousin’s best friend once borrowed $5 from an acquaintance who later worked at an oil field for a brief time then obviously you’re permanently biased, whereas if you merely receive a few hundred million dollars from the government in order to justify granting them more powers and sources of revenue your own impartiality is quite clearly unassailable. Nobody needs to fund any campaign against the AGW movement, because they’re their own worst enemy.

I urge everyone to ignore anything published by Stanford/s Global Climate and Energy Project or the Climate Research Unit as the former is being funded to the tune of $100 million from Exxon over 10 years and CRU has received funding from BP and Shell.

Furthermore, we should completel ignore anything Pachauri has to say because he is assisting BIG OIL to extract the last remaining remnants of oil in fields which would otherwise have been abandoned.

That anyone should have to go to such tedious effort to deny any connection of distinguished scholars to “big oil” is prima facie evidence of the politicization of the whole field of “climate science.” It is simply astounding that the Alarmists have been allowed to run away with the once-interesting question of whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases have any measurable effect on the Earth’s climate. And it is sad that “skeptical” scientists should have to waste their time refuting scurrilous attacks on their integrity.

OT to Brian H: Are you a Ghost? I have never heard the verb ‘pooch’ used in that sense outside of Whrbic, the lingua franca of WHRB.

jcrabb, do you know who funds ‘sourcewatch’? Soros. Do you know what ‘Sourcewatch’ says about itself in the disclaimer section?
“Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.”

Nice reference! Go find us some more Soros funded propaganda, will ya.

Talking about “links” can mean anything you want it to mean. It is essentially a game of 6 Degrees of Separation, where you can “link” Big Oil funding to anyone.

Eg, Exxon made a donation to a foundation which provided funds for a conference in which the culprit received free accommodation and a complimentary continental breakfast. Boy, that’s worth risking your career over, especially since the portion of the freebie that can be attributed to Exxon is, maybe, $2.

“A recent analysis conducted by Carbon Brief which investigated the authors of more than 900 published papers that cast doubt on the science underlying climate change, found that nine of the ten most prolific had some kind of relationship with ExxonMobil.”

this was re-twittered by the Carbon Brief:

“skepticscience John Cook
by carbonbrief
Exxon respond to revelation they fund top climate deniers (saying hey, we fund good stuff too) http://bit.ly/mh27SR”

Supervisory Board
The decision-making body of the ECF consists of dedicated professionals from diverse backgrounds who have complementary expertise in climate change. The board defines the ECF’s overall strategy, ensures its financial health, measures progress, and evaluates both successes and lessons learned.

Caio Koch-Weser (Chairman of the Executive Committee)
Vice-Chairman of the Deutsche Bank Group, former Vice-Minister in the German Federal Ministry of Finance and prior to that served in senior positions at the World Bank.Deutsche Bank AG
Taunusanlage 12
60325 FRANKFURT AM MAIN (for letters and postcards: 60262)
GERMANY
Tel.: +49 69 910-00
Fax: +49 69 910-34225

Kristian Parker
Chair of the Oak Foundation and trustee lead on their Environment Programme.
(Kathleen Cravero-Kristoffersson, President)eep@oakfnd.ch

Please write to the board of trustees of the European Fund and of these funding organizations, asking them to withdraw funding from European Fund, The Energy Strategy Center, and The Carbon Brief over this slanderous attack on these scientists. Be polite, but point out that The Carbon Brief is destroying the foundations of science and society by its slander.

Guilt by association is a version of the ad hominem fallacy in which a person is said to be guilty of error because of the group he or she associates with. The fallacy occurs when we unfairly try to change the issue to be about the speaker’s circumstances rather than about the speaker’s actual argument. Also called “Ad Hominem, Circumstantial.”

Example:
Secretary of State Dean Acheson is too soft on communism, as you can see by his inviting so many fuzzy-headed liberals to his White House cocktail parties.

Has any evidence been presented here that Acheson’s actions are inappropriate in regards to communism? This sort of reasoning is an example of McCarthyism, the technique of smearing liberal Democrats that was so effectively used by the late Senator Joe McCarthy in the early 1950s. In fact, Acheson was strongly anti-communist and the architect of President Truman’s firm policy of containing Soviet power.

The perpetrators demonstrate that they have no integrity, by explicitly violating their own blog standards for accuracy and debate:

We believe accuracy should be the key value in discussing climate change, and we aim to act as an independent mediator between the media and scientists.
– No ad hominem attacks: vigorous debate is fine, but not personal attacks or accusations

Even a few letters to these responsible persons will likely gain action.

berniel says:
May 14, 2011 at 3:18 am
“IMO Borg Lomborg’s lasting achievement was to cause environmentalists like myself to become aware of some totally inexcusable biases in the reporting of the environmental damage caused by civilisation, and so he caused many of us for the first time to turn a steady critical eye on the possibility that this bias might be motivated (consciously or unconsciously) by the vested interests of those enviromental scientists who have chosen to embrace the moral high ground. ”

For me it was the exaggerated numbers about the remaining oil in the Brent Spar that proved to me that information coming from Greenpeace is Black Propaganda. (Sorry, Richard Black, that’s a coincidence, i didn’t talk about you there…)

Gavin Schmidt’s remark about E&E is interesting if he believes that Sonya only published papers that dispensed with peer review that fitted in with her political position.

Does Gavin actually believe this?? I think he does, because it squares with my experience as editor of AIG News – the Australian global warmers also seem to believe that I censor all and every pro-global warming article/letter etc. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I didn’t and don’t and the reason the editorial is scientific, and hence sceptical, is that I just don’t receive any pro-AGW stuff because they believe I won’t publish them, so they don’t submit anything.

I suppose it stands to reason since they don’t like publishing contrarian papers, they then assume then we on the other side also censor as much as they do.

The Carbon Brief appears to have been set up for the specific purpose of countering sceptical stories relating to ‘climate change’ by going to AGW consensus scientific sources for an instant rebuttal. It is a project of the Energy and Strategy Centre, funded and supported by the European Climate Foundation (ECF)

Hmm, lemme see how this works. CALSTRS holds $1,017,689,000 worth of Exxon-Mobile stock. CALSTRS pays my monthly pension. I spend money to travel and take pictures for the surfacestations project. Ergo, Anthony Watts’ work is supported by Exxon-Mobile. For shame, Mr. Watts….

Are they so stupid that they don’t realize where they are going to be buying all that green energy?

Of course oil and gas are funding climate research.

They don’t care if they are selling you gas, ethanol, solar, windmills, or electric, whatever

You’re still going to be buying it from the same people.

and as far as scientists receiving funding….it doesn’t matter. With the exception of people like Soros, no one has pockets that deep. All scientists have to get paid. Author a paper, throw it up against the wall, and see if it sticks…that’s the way science works.

…former Greenpeace “researcher” Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil.

TomRude says:
May 14, 2011 at 7:28 am
“Looks like someone is spending time and money spewing alarmism and discredit… on scientists.”
Unfortunately yes, but at least less people are buying in the garbage. It will take time to clean-up.

“Singer: “1. We are funded almost 100% by private donations from individuals.

2. I note that Exxon and other companies are funding supporters of AGW with direct grants to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Gee, I’m sorry . . . . but, this is an indication that maybe (probably) Exxon does not want any more competition in the arena . . . and that they do support a limited supply of energy so that the profit margins can be maximized . . .

This would not be surprising . . . and par for the history of merchants. . . it’s why we (US) have an anti-trust division and used to have a good income tax system for this kind of activity . . .

DirkH,
Not just the question of the amount of oil in the Brent Spar (which they lied about and were eventually forced to apologise — very, very quietly — to Shell for) but also the hypocrisy.
One of the reasons for opting for sea disposal, according to an insider who was working for Shell at the time, was that it would not fall foul of the likes of Greenpeace since that organisation had done the same thing with Rainbow Warrior, sinking it off the New Zealand coast as “a dive site”.
In fact the amount of pollution (real pollution not the mythical Carbon Dioxide stuff) created by the eventual means of disposal was greater by an order of magnitude than it would have been if Shell had had their way.
Just one example of oil companies discovering the hard way that trying to placate the eco-luddites doesn’t work.http://www.greenspirit.com/21st_century.cfm?msid=29&page=5 has the story.
Of course there are numerous other examples of lying by Greenpeace and other enviro-mental NGOs. They appear to live according to the tenets of Richard Nixon who, allegedly, lied from habit and if he caught himself telling the truth immediately told a lie in order not to get out of practice.

Isn’t it ironic that AGW alarmists can publish basically anything they want, while Timothy Ball is being sued for his statements about Michael Mann et al’s very public emails. Christian Hunt has gone way beyond ad hom and innuendo here. His writing is slanderous.

You’d think Christian Hunt would be worried all those deep pockets in the shadows could fund a lawsuit against him /sarc.

So.. There’s probably two hundred thousand people going to read this article today. Who’s got the best “link” between carbon brief and fossil fueld industry that is documentable? Sounds like it’s time to twitterbomb “carbonbrief linked to exxonmobil funding.” We’re all getting burned anyway, sounds like time to fight a little dishonest fire with a little honest fire.

The egregious James Hansen is currently ‘lecturing’ (apparently ‘hectoring’ would be more apt term) in New Zealand, spreading his usual nonsense about the CO2 from coal being ‘worse’ than any other CO2 and telling the usual lies about about the ‘Denialist conspiracy being funded by Big Oil’ and his lie about Richard Lindzen ‘not believing that smoking tobacco causes cancer’ among other falsehoods. He must think that the distance from anywhere to NZ provides a margin of protection; he is being reported in some excellent science bolgs down there, one of which has undertaken to get Dr Lindzen to comment.

Elizabeth (not the Queen) says:
May 14, 2011 at 8:53 am
“Isn’t it ironic that AGW alarmists can publish basically anything they want, while Timothy Ball is being sued for his statements about Michael Mann et al’s very public emails. Christian Hunt has gone way beyond ad hom and innuendo here. His writing is slanderous.

You’d think Christian Hunt would be worried all those deep pockets in the shadows could fund a lawsuit against him /sarc.”

Brings me to a question I have had for some time. Why is it that only the left and their sycophants in the “green movement” can sue? Why are some on the right not litigating for damages to our economy, properties, livelihoods, etc., caused by these loonies?

But the article on The Carbon Brief claimed that “a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors.”

That covers anyone who works using taxpayer funds, you could also count me as I got a tax rebate last year.

What surprises me is that no-one has suggested that Carbon Brief be sued for defamation. It would be a breach of contract, for example, for Ross McKitrick to accept payment from Exxon Mobil in order to promote what is presumed to be Exxon-Mobil’s views on climate (or anything else).

Why is Stephen Schneider and Stanford University not mentioned for taking $100 million from Exxon for environmental research? Does that level of funding not imply agreement with the aims of Exxon Mobil?

The idea that skeptic scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel money is the central point of AGW believers’ 3-point mantra; settled science, corrupt skeptics, and a media that gives too much consideration to skeptics. We know all three points are unsupportable, but that doesn’t stop the AGW believers from continually hammering this, so it is up to us to hammer back on myriad faults in their mantra. I do what I can, please see my latest at American Thinker from earlier this week about an ex-TV anchorman who thought he could get away with regurgitating point #3 without apparently saying where he got it from, “Warmist Mantra Wearing Out” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/warmist_mantra_wearing_out.html

@Mike Bromley
Agreed. Your’re perfectly right. Asking such direct questions is not a way to rule out the issue.
I work in biomedical research since >1 5 years and I can reassure everybody that Industry impact is high, although subliminal, in the work of several Investigators. It is very easy to design a protocol destined to prove (or provide “robust” support) to hypothesis in agreement with Industry marketing plan; on the other had it is equally easy for those who are in the “right” position to avoid trials that are likely to prove concepts that “negatively” impact the market.
I would not be surprised for such a bearing to happen in the climate research. Monay means interest everywhere.
Needless to say that I am not supporting the idea the above-mentioned scientists are indeed influenced by Exxon (or others), I am just saying this this is a very naive way to discuss the issue. The nice “conflict of interest” forms one has to fill when submitting papers or lecturing is just waste-paper and sometimes it is just a matter of digging a little bit more deeper.

The smoking = cancer denialists were a small, well-paid group of hired guns, basically. McKnight [an Australian author] was implying that today’s climate contrarians are their equivalent. Jo Nova rebutted the implication:

“The swelling ranks of sceptical scientists is now the largest whistle-blowing cohort in science ever seen. It includes some of the brightest: two with Nobel prizes in physics, four NASA astronauts, 9000 PhDs in science, and another 20,000 science graduates to cap it off. A recent US Senate minority report contained 1000 names of eminent scientists who are sceptical, and the term professor pops up more than 500 times in that list. These, McKnight, an arts PhD, calls deniers.

“Just because thousands of scientists support the sceptical view doesn’t prove they’re right, but it proves their opinions are nothing like the tobacco sceptics campaign that McKnight compares them with in a transparent attempt to smear commentators with whom he disagrees.”

Brings me to a question I have had for some time. Why is it that only the left and their sycophants in the “green movement” can sue? Why are some on the right not litigating for damages to our economy, properties, livelihoods, etc., caused by these loonies?

Because people on the right have to work for a living and don’t have everything handed to them. The left, the ones that sue, are getting something from those that work so they have more free time. Now obviously there are exceptions.

“Christy: “The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a “Marshall Institute expert”. I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection – hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman.”

That is a poster child for how the unethical left wing concocts a skeptic as a spokesman for or is influenced to fabicate counter/AGW arguements.

For many people it is not possible to evaluate the evidence thoroughly because of lack of time or expertise. Bad science is easy to find on the skeptic side. Until climate gate broke, I hadn’t looked deeply enough to notice bad science on the alarmist side. But now I know the alarmists are doing things like hiding the decline, and worse, nearly the entire alarmist community is defending the hiding.

As far as I can tell, the evidence leaves some doubt about whether humans are causing much global warming. But alarmists say it shouldn’t. It’s a lot easier to create doubt than it is to gather sufficient evidence to eliminate doubt and spend trillions of dollars. When you can’t evaluate the evidence thoroughly by yourself, credibility matters. Some say we should just look at the research itself and judge from that. Unfortunately there are far to many ways to twist research, both intentional and even unintentionally. Ad hominem attacks and guilt by association with special interests, if true and significant, are appropriate considerations.

Just for the record, I am one of them because Cancer was always blamed on Smoking and Smoking always causes Cancer . . . until they admitted that Black Lung, Asbestos, Radiation Poisoning, and other causes . . . Besides . . .

nicotin- – definition of nicotin- by the Free Online Dictionary …Nicotinic acid: nicotinamide. [From nicotine.] How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, …http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nicotin- – Cached – Similar

Niacin – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNiacin (also known as vitamin B3, nicotinic acid and vitamin PP) is an organic compound with the formula C6H5NO2 and, depending on the definition used, …

I’m reminded of the journalistic techniques of a magazine my father
received in the mid-to-late 1960s (via a complimentary subscription
from a business acquiantance) titled, “American Opinion” published
by a man named Welsh from Canton, Ohio.

It was a slick little magazine, color front and back pages, with good
quality graphics and typography. This magazine was so far to the right
that the John Birch Society and similar organizations were comfortable
using it to advertise their films, slide shows, and reading liturature
targeting junior and senior high school students. (Church groups, too.)

The “story” and “editorial” content of each bi-monthly issue usually
contained mention of who was “associated” or “linked” to various
Socialist/Communist parties, or just in league with ultra-liberal clubs,
study groups, organizations or institutions.

Joe McCarthy was still a hero to these folks… 20 years after the fact.

He was felled by the creeping communist conspiracy that was all around
us… maybe even under our beds.

The AGW crowd has simply substituted “denier” for “sympathizer”,
“pinko” and “fellow traveler” in their rhetoric. They feign cringing
at the creeping corporate conspiracy that is all around us, claiming
“deniers” promote a return to belching smoke stacks, clouds of invisible
toxic gasses with rivers chock full of industrial wastes… and an
overheated atmosphere.

They keep their followers in line by implying one who won’t adhere
to the current consensus is a “denier” in drag.

These allegations of “links” are carbon copies of the old red scare
tactics, and their “proofs” are just as ephemeral.

When I worked at a government lab, I was invited to give a workshop on some math topics–paid. But as a gov employee I could only accept up to a $5 gift, so I gave the course anyway and accepted a coffee mug as my honorarium. By that (and this) logic, anything more than a coffee mug would have corrupted me. Wow.

What about the other side. Trolls accuse others of what they theemselves are doing. There was a Climategate email about a $50 000 grant from an oil company to alarmists. Environazis reduce the supply of fossils, while not affecting demand much, hence higher prices and profits. How much oil money do alarmists get?

And take a look at grants from the US gov (NSF) sometime. Full of references to global warming. There is a lot of money in alarmism and we should say so more loudly.

The Carbon Brief is funded by the European Climate Foundation (multi million euro), whose role is to campaign for 80-95% reduction of eu co2 emmission by 2050. The ECF has a communications group, headed up my the Director of The Carbon Brief.
Thus well paid, experienced PR/Media professionals, much more worrying than the Climate Rapid Response squad in the USA.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/about
“Carbon Brief’s Director, Tom Brookes, is director of the Energy Strategy Centre (ESC) the communications unit funded by the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Editor Christian Hunt has worked as a researcher and web editor for Greenpeace and the Public Interest Research Centre.”

The role of the ESC is to act as an intelligence centre for expertise on climate change. Its objective is to help create political, media and public endorsement for strong action to address climate change at an international, national and sector level. It also seeks to bring expertise and resources to ensure that climate change issues are objectively and accurately reported and debated in the public space.”

Here is how I would want to answer these questions:
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Not yet, please send the six figure and up checks to .

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Having never recieved such checks to date, I cannot say. Try me!

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Well, it might in the future…

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Think of how proud of myself I would be if I had to face that temptaion, and overcame it! Please give me that chance! I sure it would, uh, strengthen my moral fibers no end!

The smear job, how I remember the smear jobs as an activist. OMG how nice it was to dig around in your own soiled pants, all warm and cozy and not to sticky in the winter, to find some true nuggets to smear the evil doers into enlightenment with. And as far as I can remember that was the natural cause of why smear campaigns never became properly science based to start with. :p

Mr Lynn says:
May 14, 2011 at 6:47 am
…
OT to Brian H: Are you a Ghost? I have never heard the verb ‘pooch’ used in that sense outside of Whrbic, the lingua franca of WHRB.

/Mr Lynn

Nope, but of a nearby generation. ;D

IAC, the dig is withdrawn, or rather redirected at Poptech, who ‘fessed up. [What’s sorta funny-bizarre is that most who do that particular misspell then pronounce it to suit: Ek-Setera. And generally use i.e. to mean “fer example”. And “wallah” for voilà. Etc. So I was kinda nonplussed to see it in Fred’s text! But I’m sure P-T is non-disingenuous when he says it was just a typo. :) ]

As for the outrageous “linked to” hypocrisy the article highlights, surely it would suffice to note that the Demonic Big Oil companies are (currently, while the subsidy-tide continues to flow) joined at the hip with every AGW group and foundation on the planet, and fund them lavishly — orders of magnitude more than any tiny dissenting research efforts or analyses. So Greens are all hoist by their own petards*, and must blow huge clouds of smoke and desperately maneuver big mirrors to keep attention off their duplicity.

The strategy of Big Oil in funding Green initiatives deserves more analysis and consideration. Beyond buying tickets on the subsidy gravy-train, I think they know full well that the renewables are going to fail spectacularly, and out of necessity the world will turn very urgently to fossil fuels — outside of India and China, which are ramping up use with only the most perfunctory of nods to demands to reduce use of the Demon Carbon. They are, then, de facto also betting (and, one hopes, working behind the scenes) to make sure the AGW foolishness doesn’t actually achieve de-industrialization and de-population, which would be VERY bad for business.

Brian H , “IAC, the dig is withdrawn, or rather redirected at Poptech, who ‘fessed up. [What’s sorta funny-bizarre is that most who do that particular misspell then pronounce it to suit: Ek-Setera. And generally use i.e. to mean “fer example”. And “wallah” for voilà. Etc. So I was kinda nonplussed to see it in Fred’s text! But I’m sure P-T is non-disingenuous when he says it was just a typo. :) ]”

The oil industry has absolutely no need to fund climate “deniers”. I see no evidence that even so-called passionate advocates are reducing their CO2 emissions. Celebrities, stars, politicians, scientists etc see little problem in jetting around the world either for conference attendance – none of which have provided any value – or other reasons.

I see little evidence for the vast majority of humankind to choose not to use motor vehicles as transport – in fact I see an increasing envy and demand from the billions who currently have no mechanised transport.

I see little change in use of gasoline despitet higher pricing – the main reaction I see is increasing political pressure for solutions which reduce the price – I see no public appetite to do without.

I’m afraid that this exercise is fatally compromised by the unnecessary inclusion of the word ‘direct’. There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company. Why wasn’t the question asked as to whether individuals had received such funding? The fact that Exxon Mobil and other companies ‘launder’ their donations through a complex web of think tanks, trusts and foundations; many of which themselves choose to hide the source of their funding is well established. In such a case the fact that individuals are able to deny ‘direct’ funding is unremarkable – but that wasn’t the charge made against them.

Dean Morrison says:
May 15, 2011 at 2:49 am
I’m afraid that this exercise is fatally compromised by the unnecessary inclusion of the word ‘direct’. There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company.

Dean Morrison, “I’m afraid that this exercise is fatally compromised by the unnecessary inclusion of the word ‘direct’. There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company. Why wasn’t the question asked as to whether individuals had received such funding? The fact that Exxon Mobil and other companies ‘launder’ their donations through a complex web of think tanks, trusts and foundations; many of which themselves choose to hide the source of their funding is well established. In such a case the fact that individuals are able to deny ‘direct’ funding is unremarkable – but that wasn’t the charge made against them.”

Again WHAT EVIDENCE? You keep repeating this perpetual conspiracy theory. I am well aware that unsubstantiated charges of conspiracy and corruption keep being made with ZERO evidence to support the charges. Put up or shut up.

I am not sure that this group, The Carbon Brief, deserves any response. Dr. Goklany said it all, “What’s interesting about Carbon Brief’s “analysis” is that it is devoid of intellectual content. It doesn’t present any science, data or reasoned argument refuting – or even questioning — the contents of the papers cited in Popular Technology.”

Carbon Brief is attempting to discredit scientists who accept funds from commercial sources of fossil fuels. I say so what? If we are to believe there is scientific integrity, the results of scientific investigation should be independent of a funding source. Many of the donations for research come from foundations organized by industry including major oil companies to provided funds in areas of interest managed by a independent board of trustees.

Dr. Lindzen made a very cogent comment in response to question “My only funding has been from the government funding agencies: NSF, NASA, and DOE. They actually do influence scientific work.” Maybe the shoe fits the other foot. Groups like NSF, NASA, DOE, EPA, USDA, define the only research work they will fund through their proposal mechanisms. By defining what is acceptable they have forced scientists to work on the issues they will fund .

None of the individuals were asked the simple question: “Have you received funding from Exxon?”

Because that question was not asked, this exercise is flawed.

Why was the simple question not asked?

Why were the individuals only asked about “direct” funding?

Why weren’t they asked if they’d received indirect funding from Exxon?

Because that question wasn’t asked, it is not possible to make the claim that this exercise shows that the individuals involved have not received funding from Exxon, and I’m afraid the Carbon Brief’s challenge remains unanswered.

“There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company… The fact that Exxon Mobil and other companies ‘launder’ their donations through a complex web of think tanks, trusts and foundations; many of which themselves choose to hide the source of their funding is well established.”

“Well established??”

I challenge you to produce verifiable evidence. Put up or shut up, troll.

So if you are defending scientists, will that extend to unsupported attacks on climate researches and claims they are “doing it” for the money” on dozens of skeptic sites conspiracy theories that variously claim scientists are lying and getting money from the UN, Green Tech, Al Gore or whoever it is this week.

Didn’t think so!

From a legal stand point was there a reason for the wording of Q. 1
“Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”
why not “Have you ever received funding from ExxonMobil?”

Given that Exxon themselves have admitted they fund skeptic web sites and that many of those listed above are also linked to skeptic websites it would seem the word “direct” is needed.

There are about 30 “skeptical view” websites listed in the sidebar here. I’m sure Exxon funds none of them, and never did.

What you mean by “skeptic web sites” is something different: free market websites that Exxon would fund, like other large businesses, even in the absence of any global warming controversy. Those sites happen to disbelieve in global warming, but that fight isn’t their main focus, or even an important minor focus (with a couple of exceptions), and they haven’t had much of an impact in the battle over the matter.

A few skeptical scientists are closely allied with a few of them, but that’s it. The money involved is relatively trivial, and the allied scientists are not hired guns who’d say anything for money, but sincere disbelievers who are trying to keep their noses above water financially while steering an unpopular course. They’d be saying the same thing as they are now if they were being funded by the NSF.

See my comments upthread for more on the way the warmists have distorted the amount of funding involved on the skeptical side, and what it is being spend on, and where.

Reply to Roger K
OK look at the answer for S. Fred Singer
“Singer: “Yes. An unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.”
He seems to forget to mention his links to the Cato Inst, The National Center for Policy Analysis, The Frontiers of Freedom organizations and The American Council on Science and Health. Which in 2002/3 got almost half a million dollars from Exxon.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer#Oil_Industry_Contractor
This link also shows he did considerable amount of work for a number of other oil companies (Exxon is not the only oil company)
He even says Exxon gave him 10,000 (for unknown reasons) I’m sorry but even companies as large as exxon don’t just give away 10,000 for no reason.
Had question 1 been, have you ever received any funding directly or indirectly from any oil or energy industry his answer may have had to be very different.

Skeptics started the smearing, but it has not gone that well as judging by the answers above there is nothing to support it but hear say, yet the linkages of skeptics to oil money is real so it’s hardly a smear, on the last one for McKitrick the info comes from Exxon themselves as the Fraser Institute wont reveal where much of it’s funding comes from.
I can’t really be bothered looking further but as I said many of those listed are linked to groups like Cato, SEPP and a number of others and these groups are most defiantly funded by oil and energy interests and that includes Exxon.
In fact SEPP’s source watch bring up S Fred Singer again here he states (in 1994) he did get money from Exxon and others, what was his answer to Question 1 again?http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SEPP#Funding

An interesting reply poptech, perhaps you can explain how you created an account and logged in, given that there is no such facility on Co2 science, whoops!
Given that the amounts in quetion have been on the source watch site for some time, if they were not true Co2 science could easily sue for fraud, as that does not seem to have happened I think we can safely say they are correct, and as there is no way to create an account on Co2 your comment speaks for itself.
As for Idso and Co2 Science, o.k. you don’t like Sourcewatch, how about something from Co2 Sciences own site (or is that unreliable as well)http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php
Quote
“That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past”
That would seem to be from the mans own mouth, yes he did get money from Exxon.

Carbon Brief
United Kingdom, London
Capacity Building / 2010
To support the launch of an online communications and media relations project aimed at monitoring, investigating and countering biased or inaccurate reporting of climate science in the UK.

Not that tthey have a vested interest of course (lobbying for a 90% reduction in CO2in Europe by 2050)
Hewlet’s money well spent…..